Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 7th Dec 2007 06:25 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Qt Jambi ships as a single Java library, or JAR (Java Archive) file, plus a handful of tools, including an interface layout and design tool, and an Eclipse plug-in. Trolltech uses its vaunted Qt C++ library as the GUI engine and puts Java wrappers around it. This approach uses the JNI (Java Native Interface) to call the necessary functions from Java. More here.
Thread beginning with comment 289487
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Unconvinced
by segedunum on Sat 8th Dec 2007 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: Unconvinced"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

No, the answer is still YES. All you have to write is Java code. You don't have to write any non-Java code.

1. Download JDK (I shouldn't have to if we have a Java Desktop System).

2. Open Netbeans. Find a project where I can create a control panel applet, a systray applet, a system service, a desktop shared component or a desktop GUI embeddable component.

Nothing........

I can just about write a systray applet if I really wanted, and you're desperately trying to make this the point (oh, oh, oh, you can use JDIC!), but the desktop development integration is non-existant. Period. The desktop integration isn't 'more than good enough'. Sun and others in the Java world have literally had to be press-ganged into doing anything at all.

Repeat this until you get it:

"In the real world of development, if you can't do something like Project -> New Project -> Control Panel Applet, it can't be done. The Java Desktop System, quite frankly, is not any kind of Java Desktop System."

This is what developers do. If you want to piss about for several hours, days or weeks, be my guest. Everyone else will find easier ways to do things, and laugh at your shitty UIs.

Legacy applications will pick up the new theme automatically as long as you are running them under Java 6.

Many people are not going to be running Java 6. For those where native look and feel was important, they left Java behind, oh I don't know, about eight or nine years ago.

Says who? You? Ad-hominem. Logical fallacy. you haven't even tried it. You didn't even know what it was. Now you are just making an off the cuff remark you can't even pretend to back up.

Sweetheart, do you know what JDIC does yourself?! You can get native access to the filesystem, do some stuff with screensavers, get system info, create some systray stuff and set wallpapers! That's it.

Any bunch of Windows developers is going to laugh you out of the office. Seriously. You're acting as if people should simply be using Java for this stuff......and they aren't, for very good reasons.

Oh come on... You have to hunt for a hell of alot more stuff to do development in C or C++ than you do in Java.

Sun has something called a Java Desktop System, as well as a JDK. Desktop integration isn't something you 'hunt around for'. It's a pre-requisite.

So I guess since you can't do "Project -> New Project -> New Word Processor", it's not possible to write a word processor huh?

People don't write word processors any more. Not exactly a developer, are you? However, an embeddable Open Office component and ODF output would be nice - but that isn't going to happen because people are clueless about this. Eventually, in another ten or fifteen years some people might create an incubator Java project because they see that this might be important. Just as it took ten years to get any Java desktop integration of any description.

You've already proven you don't know what JDIC is, how it works, and then proceeded to make logical fallacy attacks against it.

Telling me I don't know what I'm talking about etcetera, etcetera, isn't going to make any of this stuff untrue or make it go away. What can I say? You're not a developer.

- You threw your credibility out of the nearest ten storey window when you proceeded to tell us all that Swing was the most popular desktop toolkit in the world. You can produce any non-existant report or set of figures you like, but nothing will make that true.

- You don't understand that ISVs buy development tools - yes, even the micro ones. That whole argument seemed to peter out.

So forgive me when I say - bite me.

Oh wow... You have to bundle ONE .so file with your application... Whatever will you do?

Do what everyone else does, and did many years ago - use something else that makes deployment easier and we're you're not using unstable components. C'est la vie.

Edited 2007-12-08 02:37

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[13]: Unconvinced
by evangs on Sat 8th Dec 2007 09:44 in reply to "RE[12]: Unconvinced"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Do what everyone else does, and did many years ago - use something else that makes deployment easier and we're you're not using unstable components. C'est la vie.


Uhm ... what exactly are you complaining about? Having to bundle an additional .so or .dll is a trivial task. I'd like to know what this amazing "something else" is? For any non-trivial task, you will be deploying more than one file.

To solve this problem, we came up with installers many years ago. Unless you're referring to static linking?

Reply Parent Score: 3